TexasCHLforum.com

apostate wrote:

E.Marquez wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:Someone who follows illegal orders should be held fully responsible for their actions, just like the person issuing the illegal orders.

In theory i agree, and in cases where malice is proven Id agree.. But your idea as stated means every person must now be an educated, experienced lawyer with experience in the specific area of this law, so they can actually KNOW the law as it applies to the various permutations of it.

Fundamentally, how is that different than expecting managers to be experts on sexual harassment laws, not to mention discriminatory hiring and firing?

RossA wrote:Tell that to the police.
"Officer, I didn't know it was illegal to speed through a school zone."
Since when is ignorance of the law an excuse?

Ahh, sure no problem, every employee in every store that might have need to tell a customer they can not bring a weapon into the store because thats is what the boss said, they should be an expert in the law as it applies to weapons carried in public..
Ok fair enough.
So as you set the bar at that level.

So do either of you drive a vehicle on public streets?
Are you willing to state you are experts in every law as it applies to driving a vehicle on a public street, after all ignorance of the law is no excuse..Right?

I can only assume you both are experts and know every law and permutation of the law as it applies to operating a vehicle,,since I assume you operate a vehicle on a public road...

So I can ask you a Texas law based question about vehicle operation and you will KNOW the answer, correctly, completely and immediately without assistance.. YEs? as you suggest a dollar General store clerk, a McDonald clerk, the sales guy at the local car dealership should be fully informed on with reference to "It would be even better if a citizen could also personally sue every government official and employee who was involved in the decision to either create or enforce a "gun free" zone. Someone who follows illegal orders should be held fully responsible for their actions, just like the person issuing the illegal orders."

Or do you think its reasonable that we can not all be experts in every law on the book we might encounter on a daily basis, and while it makes for a funny INTERNET Meme " Ignorance of the law is no excuse" reality is something much different.
My point is, I agree, if you are responsible to set policy.. you are responsible to reasonable know the policy is lawful.

But down the food chain, other then obvious common known and understood laws..its unrealistic for every person to know every law as it applies to carrying a weapon in public... even if your told to enforce it.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:Someone who follows illegal orders should be held fully responsible for their actions, just like the person issuing the illegal orders.

In theory i agree, and in cases where malice is proven Id agree.. But your idea as stated means every person must now be an educated, experienced lawyer with experience in the specific area of this law, so they can actually KNOW the law as it applies to the various permutations of it.

If the company owner says "hey don't forget after Thursday, we are not allowing guns in the building" I don't expect every employee to go home, research relevant case law, the actual law covering this situation, contact a lawyer to get an opinion on if such action is legal or not and then confront their employer before next Thursday.. do you?

Now if the employee has been shown a judges ruling specific to the conditions and circumstances they are in or local law enforcement has stopped by and advised "You cant do that, this law XYZ, says they can have that gun here regardless of what the boss said" or if some other person of apparent authority who is reasonable accepted to commonly have an "educated" opinion advised that employee the gun prohibition was illegal, then sure Id say the burden shifts to the employee to confirm or deny what they are doing (enforcing) is righteous.